Jack of ALL Trades?

There is a fast growing and disturbing trend which is becoming apparent in the e-Learning world – no longer is it good enough to be an instructional design specialist, you now have to be a graphic designer and a programer as well!

Jack or Master?

I have spent years (14 to be precise) perfecting my specialism as an instructional designer of blended learning. However, only the other day someone rang me and said “Hi there Judith, I’ve got the perfect job for you. We need an instructional designer for 20 days to get an e-Learning programme produced. I assume that you can program in Articulate?”.

My reply to this was along the lines of “... err, sorry, no, I’m not a programer, I am an instructional designer. I have written scripts which were to be programed in Articulate, so I know how the suite of tools work, but as I have said already, I am not a programer and neither am I a graphic designer. I know and specify what graphics I want but I couldn’t design them to save my life!”.

Now, if this was a one off, then OK, but it wasn’t. I’ve had and seen numerous job opportunities recently for the ‘Jack of all instructional designer trades’, which makes me wonder what on earth is going on and, far more importantly, what effect this trend is going to have on the job which I do and, from what others tell me, do very well.

Becoming a top notch instructional designer takes years of experience and I’m still learning and developing in this role. I haven’t the time, skills or inclination to stop my learning and development to learn how to program, even if the authoring tools to be used are in the ‘Rapid’ category. We need more quality instructional designers and not ‘Jacks of all Trades and Masters of None’! Each to their own, that’s what I say. There are plenty of people out their who are ace at graphic design and others who just love programing – so let them get on with it, that’s what I say.

So, what lies beneath this worry trend? The answer my friend, is ignorance and greed! Ignorance of what instructional design is all about and greed in wanting to get something produced as quickly as possible and as cheaply as possible. Just as I thought we were finally turning the corner in the production of quality e-Learning programmes, it would seem that we are now in real danger of turning the clock back by expecting people with real instructional design skills and experience to become something they are not.

My dilemma now is, that in order to earn a living, should I learn how to use authoring tools such as Captivate and Articulate? I hope, most sincerely, that the answer is ‘NO’!

Trendy Terms Alert (1)

From time to time I am going to blog about a current L&D ‘Trendy Term’. Each Trendy Term Alert (TTA) will consider whether the term has any mileage or whether it should be consigned to the trash can.

TTA: ‘Social Learning’

I have heard and seen the term ‘Social Learning’ more times than I’ve had hot dinners of late! So why the popularity?

I guess it has everything to do with Web 2.0 or e-Learning 2.0, where technology allows people to learn easily in a social environment by exchanging views, having discussions, using webinars, etc. But hasn’t this always been the case without technology? Think about seminars, tutorials and other face-to-face learning techniques. Apart from the dreaded and so often sterile lecture, learning with the involvement of others has been going on ad infinitum.

However, learning can only be an individual activity. Only I can learn something, you cannot learn it for me. So, in a sense, this particular TTA is an oxymoron. I can, of course, learn something by experience, without the help of or input from others. I can also learn from someone, like a teacher, tutor, trainer, coach or mentor, or even a blog, just as I can from being in a group with a number of people, without or with the assistance of technology.

So why is it important to stress or mention the ‘social learning’ dimension? To be honest, I haven’t a clue, unless it is to hype the use of certain types of technology – surely not!

Conclusion? Well, I think we should consign this particular TTA to the …

Twittering on and on!

I have been using the micro-blogging web site, Twitter, for nearly 4 months now.  So, I think this should be long enough to critique it, especially as it's been quite an interesting experience - to be honest some of which I wasn't even expecting!

So, here are my thoughts and experiences, in no particular order, as a member of the tweeting fraternity:

1. The name's all wrong!  How can you possibly twitter on and on when you only have 140 characters (including spaces) at your disposal?  Mind you, having said that some of the people I follow do manage to twitter on by sending multiple tweets!  But, and this is a big but, although I didn't like this limitation at first - it frustrated me considerably - I am now a great fan, as it makes you think carefully what you are going to say instead of rambling on and on, ah la like blogging in general eh?!!

2. As I am someone who texts on a mobile using full words and proper punctuation, I really can't be doing with tweeters who use text-speak in order to cram more into their tweet!  I can't read it, I can't understand it, and I forget to read it out loud (which usually transforms it into something reasonably intelligible) - I thought one of the ideas behind Twitter was quick and lucid communications but there I'm obviously a deluded soul.

3. Depending on the words you use in your tweets, you can find yourself attracting some very strange and dubious people as followers!  I will save my blushes by not telling you about some of the people who declared that they were following me.  Don't worry, I have blocked them all.

4. 'What are you doing?' - so starts a tweet but, unfortunately, this often misleads followers to tell you things that, quite frankly, you are not interested in one little bit.  I really don't want to know when someone I follow is going to bed, taking a walk, going to the pub, having a cup of coffee .... such a big yawn time .... what I want from the people I follow is a short of mini conversation about ideas, developments, things to read, what's hot, etc. in my world of L&D.  The problem is that a lot of people who do this are often using Twitter to satisfy two quite different sets of followers - those with whom they have a professional, i.e. in my case L&D, e-Learning, alliance and those with whom they are connected socially.  If I were to use Twitter socially then I would set up another profile and keep it distinct from my professional one.

5. An etiquette of tweeting is beginning to develop which is quite interesting in its own right.  For example, should you always follow those who follow you?  No, not necessarily.  I get quite concerned when someone wants to follow me and they are following over a thousand others and yet have very few followers - I normally block these people!  In fact my aim is to have more people following me than I follow - I know, big head!  On top of which how on earth can someone follow a thousand plus people - they must do nothing else than look at Twitter all day?!  How should you use the 'RT' abbreviation?  Currently there is quite a debate about this which centers around IPR and quoting others.  I tend to use this when I replying to a follower's tweet so that other followers who may not be following this person can understand my reply.  As for # tags, well I still have to get my head around this one!

6. To tweet or not to tweet (ah, indeed that is the question!)?  I think that after nearly 4 months I can say 'tweet' but do so wisely and with a purpose.  If that purpose is from a professional point of view then set out to find like-minded souls who you may never have found via other means (this is certainly something which has worked for me), to exchange news, content, and views which can lead to their and your development and learning, and don't get into the habit of centering your day around tweeting - some folk really don't know when to stop (see point 1 above).

OK, they are my 6 of the best for now.  I'll probably blog again after a few months if I can add to this list and I'd be surprised if I can't!!

I've given a brief description below of all the terms used above which are in italics.  Please feel free to add to this list or to challenge their descriptions.  Also, if you are tweeter, then please share your experiences as well.

Blocked = Stopping a person from following you.

Followers  = Those people who will receive all your tweets.

Follow = Those people whose tweets you receive.

Profile = Your account, containing your details, etc.

RT = To re-tweet, i.e. allow your followers to see what one of your followers has written.

Tweeting = The process of sending tweets.

Tweets = Sending or receiving 140 character messages.

Working as an Instructional Designer

What's it like to be an Instructional Designer?  Well, you are often underpaid, held in low esteem, ignored, expected to churn out sausages and used as a scapegoat.  But you can also find yourself treated with respect and courtesy, listened to at all times and, most importantly of all, getting a tremendous amount of satisfaction from a job well done.

For me, working as an instructional designer is the job I most want to do whenever I get the chance.  Some people might think that I must have masochistic tendencies by admitting to such a thing because they have tried instructional design and found it to be a most disagreeable experience.  In particular, when working as an e-Learning instructional designer the art and science of the job are so often pushed to their limits, which is either a good thing if you are good at what you are doing or a really bad thing if you aren't!

In an ideal world the instructional designer is someone who is respected and who takes the lead on what learners need to be able to do, how content will be structured and sequenced, what delivery media will be used, and how assessment will be used.  When e-Learning is either a part of or the whole solution, instructional designers should also take the lead on how assets will be used, the look and feel of the GUI, and the use of navigation and function buttons.  Why?  Well, it's because they know about such things and how they can be used best to help people learn - they need to be the leaders of the team and not the tea-makers.

However, all too often reality is far removed from the ideal world.  Far too often, even with nearly 14 years instructional design experience, I have found myself being dictated to by graphic designers and programers, most of whom have very little idea about instructional designers and how people learn.  If you pay peanuts then you usually get monkeys but more and more instructional designers are expected to work for extremely low rates of pay.  They are often kept in the dark, a bit like mushrooms, only to be let out into the light when it's far too late.  Their advice is not heeded and when the inevitable happens they get the blame for a poor programme or end result.  If this wasn't bad enough, they are also expected to mimic a sausage-making factory, by churning out designs, learning materials and scripts to order in a robotic, machine-like fashion whilst working in an environment akin to a sweat-shop!

The environment in which instructional designers work is incredibly important to them if they are to produce quality stuff.  The more experienced the person the more they will know what works best for them.  For example, I simply cannot do instructional design work in an office, surrounded by a whole load of people.  I'm far too nosey for a start and easily get distracted by what those around me are doing!  To produce quality work I need a conducive environment, one which is quiet and where I feel most comfortable.  I need time to reflect and my own space in which to feel inspired because I don't churn out sausages!  Yet I am constantly amazed at the number of clients who insist that instructional designers work on-site at all times - how 20th Century is that?

If a client wants an experienced, mature instructional designer then why do they insist on treating them like children who can't be left to their own devices and who have to be under the watchful eye of the project manager or whomever at all times?  In addition, I wonder just how many clients have missed out on employing quality instructional designers on short, fixed-term contracts because they expect them to commute many miles each day to be on-site?  Somehow we need to get over to these people that we are now in the 21st Century with reliable and powerful communication technologies at our disposal and that their 'Victorian' attitude is doing no favours whatsoever to the provision of quality and effective learning solutions.

To this end I am currently engaged in trying to convince recruitment agencies of the futility of this outmoded and draconian approach, in the hope that they will be able to help turn the tide so that working as an instructional designer becomes far more of a pleasure instead of a pain.  Wish me well!

What's in a name?

It has annoyed me for some time now how the word 'Learning' is used with frequent regularity as if it is something which is provided, i.e. an input, instead of an outcome as a result of what has been provided.  Only the other day someone asked me about what had happened to the term 'Training and Development' and I found myself answering that 'Learning and Development' is a modern substitution for Training and Development, where the word 'training' has been dropped in favour of 'learning' so as to stress the outcome as well as the means.  But has it?  I'm not so sure now and here's why ...

If learning is an outcome and development (e.g. training, tutoring, coaching, mentoring) is an input then why are the two so often referred to in the same breath as if they are both inputs?  OK just think about this, if I were being extremely pedantic (if such a thing's possible) then the term learning and development is an oxymoron!  Back in 2005 I wrote an article entitled 'Training Fads and Fancies' and in it I stated the following ...

"One of the latest fads to hit training is to avoid any reference to it wherever possible.  For many, the term training is now a definite ‘no-no’.  Use the term and you risk a response of almost non-politically correct proportions in some quarters.  Now I know I might be treading on dangerous ground here, but it has to be faced that ‘learning’ is the new fad term.  As a result its unquestioned use has given rise to such contradictory terms as ‘learning and development’, ‘learning and resources’, ‘learning and development departments’, ‘learning managers’, and ‘learning consultants’.  I know I am not alone in thinking that training is an outward process, whereas learning is an inward one.  Whilst people in a department, or an association come to that, might be concerned with how and what people learn, they do not and cannot learn on behalf of others.  I don’t have a problem with terms like learning materials, learning workbooks, open learning, distance learning, e-Learning, The British Learning Association (now the British Institute for Learning and Development), or those who set out to provide effective learning solutions (well, I wouldn’t would I?), as all these use the word ‘learning’ in its proper context, but I do have a problem when it is used to replace ‘training’, especially when the latter describes perfectly adequately where a person’s or a department’s responsibilities lie.  I am sure that it won’t come as any surprise to know that I regard this latest development as faddism in the extreme."

... and, what's more, four years later I still do!

As long as we are clear about what we mean by 'Learning and Development' then no problem.  For example, I am passionately interested in how people learn and throughout my entire career I have sought to help people of all ages by providing solutions and inputs designed to aid their development, be these through teaching, training, coaching, consultancy, blended learning programmes, and so on.  I provide what I hope are quality development opportunities and advice but only the person at the receiving end can do the learning - I can't do it for them.  However, I am becoming increasingly worried about the growing trend to avoid any reference to or use of the word 'Training' as, in the end, I believe this to be extremely short-sighted and counter-productive.

Perhaps, if there are other like-minded souls out there, we should start a campaign to put the word TRAINING back on the map!

Horses for courses

I've just spent an enjoyable 45 minutes talking to a very nice lady who was researching the current state and future of e-Learning for the organisers of Learning Technologies following the mind-boggling article by Rob Chapman on Training Zone a few days ago:  in which he denounced e-Learning as a passing fad without one piece of factual evidence!

"So, is e-Learning the best delivery method then?" she asked me.  To which I replied "No, it's just one of many delivery methods available to us."  I then went on to explain that, whatever delivery method or methods is or are chosen, this decision should always depend on a number of factors.  First there is why people need to learn and what they need to learn, for example, for a qualification, for workplace performance, for their own needs/satisfaction.  Identifying the need then enables us to see whether the learning needs to be achieved through a training course, a development programme or an educational course.

Having decided the nature of the beast, it is then possible to produce a learning or instructional design for it.  This involves structuring and sequencing the content in relation to previously identified learning objectives and a detailed profile of the target audience, and deciding on the most cost-effective means of delivery.  The latter decision requires an analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of all delivery methods as well as those which are available to both the organisation and to the end users, i.e. the learners.  Yes, it's horses for courses and in my view for the true training and development professional it has always been thus! 

Where people adopt this systematic approach, a 'blended solution' is often the end result as there is no one perfect delivery method.  For sure, sometimes e-Learning, particularly of the 'Rapid' kind, might form the total solution and that's not a problem when a proper needs analysis and instructional design has been undertaken.  However, far too often these essential steps or stages are ignored on the basis that "we don't have the time for all that" and this is where the rot sets in and does so very quickly.  I'm not a betting person but if I were I'd bet you a penny to a pound that the really bad examples of e-Learning which exist today were produced in the absence of any needs analysis and instructional design.

So, as far as I am concerned, e-Learning in all its many guises is definitely here to stay and will continue to grow in its use across the board.  However, the demands which this means of delivery places on those involved in its design, development and production is another matter altogether and definitely the subject of another blog!

Little Boxes

For those of you who know me well, you will know that for years I have had a complete abhorrence of putting people, their attributes, their personalities, etc. into little boxes (and have you noticed how often there are just 4 boxes into which one of which we all amazingly fit?).

Now, whilst professionalism at long last seems to be improving in the L&D world (thank goodness, as it's about time - a subject for another blog I think) the act of stereotyping, for that's what it is, still seems to abound.  Every day I come across some statement which goes along the following lines .... "and we need to take into account those who belong to (put in the name of your own favourite box here) because their requirements might be different to those in (and now enter the name of another favourite box here) ...".  What a complete load of old tosh me thinks and I have always thought so, and will continue to do so until someone proves me wrong - but that hasn't happened yet!

My ire was first aroused when I came across a very popular 'Learning Styles' inventory back in the late 1980s.  I simple couldn't believe that people were so gullible as to think for one moment that human beings displayed preferences for learning which neatly fitted into one of four boxes (or none, as some, like yours truly, has shown) using a tool which had no validity (since proved by independent research) or reliability.  But people did think so and, amazingly, they still continue to do so.  "We must take into account their learning styles" is a phrase that I still see and yet no one has told me how I am supposed to do this, irrespective of the means of delivery used in an educational, training or development programme!

Today there is another box system into which we are all supposed to fit depending on our age!!  This 'classification' system is being used to 'tell' others how people will react to using Web 2.0 tools and applications.  Again, I keep on coming across totally unproven statements, such as "Generation Y will want and expect ..... because they are ..... " whilst the poor 'old' baby boomer generation (that's supposedly me folks, based on my age) are simply a lost cause when it comes to using Web 2.0.  Well, have I got news for those who perpetrate such nonsense this baby bloomer is blogging - so there!!

Oh please, let's get real and stop trying to categorise people into nice, neat, simple boxes because it just doesn't work, it's an insult to the complexity which is humanity, and it makes our profession look completely idiotic - even though it has earned some people a nice little sum over the years.

OK, rant over, that is until the next time.